Officer shoots dog during foot chase thru dog's backyard. Right or wrong? - Page 20

First, the majority of my comments are directed or in response initially towards the OP and that story. Some comments are to some of the individuals posting replies.

I have seen no other information on this situation except for what is on this thread. New information, new comments, new videos, I am only seeing here. My schedule is too busy that this is the only time to "catch up" on this situation.

BE,
That's one of the problems you have when you "read" what someone else "wrote". You would expect for situations such as this one that individuals would curb their sarcasm, etc;, due to the seriousness of what took place or the fact that some are really concerned and would like honest answers. Depending on the situation, seriousness or graveness of the crime, level of the crime and what is at stake if there is an escape and when putting all the facts together (can't think of the term right now) then "a shooting in the back" would be warranted. But to hear, or think that a LEO can shoot someone in the back for any crime, for any reason or because he/she could is WRONG, NOT TRUE.

Daryl, I'm not picking on you but you have "something" for everyone that comments. And the Ariel photos are nice. But you're forgetting the situation took place on ground, I'd say @ the 6' area. So when you look from that chopper cam to the ground not one obstacle is in the way. There could be, I'm not saying there is but there could be 30 things involved in this situation up to the point of the exact moment of the shooting. We won't go into all that. Just a thought, and hey you or someone else might laugh. But have you ever watched cops? Do you notice how some Cities are on more than others? If you have watched it enough do you notice that when certain cities are on that you will see some really good crimes taking place. If I'm right, (could be wrong, haven't watched TV in almost two years) but Louisville, when on has some serious crimes take place there. What takes place in one City could take place in another and have a totally different outcome. And because you or others don't agree with it doesn't mean it is wrong.

I said it earlier, I somewhat respect you when you are talking dogs but there is very little or no respect when you're talking about Law Enforcement. Where are you getting your information or facts concerning how a Police Officer acts, or should act in any situation? Procedures or methods when taking a subject into custody? Shoot, don't shoot situations?  And the "double tap" method used by LE personnel? Please enlighten me and anyone else that might be interested. And for commenting on two shots. "to shoot once IS to shoot twice" WHAT IS THAT? I have known cases where the subject was shot multiple times, one even eight times and still engaged the officers. 

Lee,

Some agencies have the luxury of having a PR person. You know, the type that knows exactly what to say when standing in front of the camera or talking to the reporter? Others don't. Some officers don't like public speaking, remember, we are just like the rest of the public. Lt. could have been "thrown" into commenting....who knows. And yes, as someone else thought, a poor choice of words. You can't nail the Lt. to the cross for a poor choice of words.      

 

Daryl,

Where do you get your information?

An officer can be sued multiple ways for one situation. Is it right? No. 

"But he would be free of legal responsibility for sure." One, he could be sued along with the Department,  two, the City could be sued, three, he just by himself. Then after all that four, he could still be sued CIVILLY. So there's three or four ways a Police Officer could be sued for doing his/her job. And he/she still works with all that going on in their life. Still protecting......Still serving! 

Maybe you know something special, but I meant he can't be sued for following policy, unless you could prove that he didn't "feel threatened", and therefore was not acting on policy.  Good luck proving how he "felt" unthreatened then, if that's your point.

 "to shoot once IS to shoot twice" WHAT IS THAT? I have known cases where the subject was shot multiple times, one even eight times and still engaged the officers.

 

You're really stretching aren't you?  Well then, "to shoot AT ALL is to shoot more than once."  That is, provided you haven't unloaded all but one round on a previous target.

* "But to hear, or think that a LEO can shoot someone in the back for any crime, for any reason or because he/she could is WRONG, NOT TRUE." *

-- Not true ? I'm confused with how you reply to me. Do you mean with this sentence above me thinking shooting a fleeing suspect in the back being wrong .. is not true. Are you saying it is right to shoot someone in the back fleeing from the cops ? Or did you totally misunderstand what I posted and assume I ment I'm in favor of shooting suspects that flee ? Because I'm NOT, darylehret is.

 I seriously doubt Police can shoot everyone/anyone who turns their back and runs. The statistics for death by or suicide by the Police would be off the charts by now.

This thread has gotten about ridiculous.

Yep, completely petty.  Someone just shoot me in the back of the head, please.

BE, what's hard with this forum setup when the topic is a "HOT" one is that you can not always answer everyone in order. Or even keep up with each persons' comment(s). I don't believe I stated that you believed or felt that it was okay for a LEO to shoot an individual in the back. When individuals joke or use sarcasm in their statements not everyone reads it that way. And I'm almost positive when a LEO is trying to make a valid point he/she will not joke or use sarcasm here.

My points; "To think that a LEO can shoot an individual in the back for just any crime is wrong". "To think that a LEO can shoot an individual in the back for just any reason is wrong". "To think that a LEO could shoot an individual in the back just because he/she could "is wrong". Not sure what is confusing about that? Certain criteria must be present, certain criteria must be met for that action to take place. I'll leave it at that.

IMO, this thread has gotten ridiculous only because certain individuals think, feel or believe that they know the duties and responsibilities of a LEO when in fact they have no clue but at the same time are so quick to verbalize their thoughts or opinions.
Second, read PG. 1 , OP and their comments and explain how we got where we are?  


 

i dunno, if I happened to not hear the commotion and someone was in my yard and i came around the corner in my yard comming into contact with an unknown assailant or "officer" in this instance I prolly woulda instantly put him on his ass out of reaction. I am a second degree kempo blackbelt and it being my yard i am completely justified. I would do it to the perp as well but for the sake of the point im trying to make I will just say that i guess the officer may have just beat the dog to the punch and that it wouldnt have been that dogs fault for taking a peice outta anyones ass that had entered its sanctuary and the place where it protects its owners. And i will add that if i were the officer i may have done the same thing. it does suck for the owners of the dog tho' bc im a rotti owner so i can just imagine losing one of my pals. I dunno if the county or city is responsible for loss of damages incurred such as in this situation but never the less a small gesture is better than nothing.

wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like it or not the officer is going to be backed by the city or county where this took place.I cant say how this would play out for me,if i was involved in a similare situation? If i was in my bed asleep woke by gunfire dogs barking,i would respond armed if the police were in my yard and i ran out they would probly shoot me to.And get off for doing it.Tuff situation to call, how does the cop know that isn't the purps house and dog? the qustions are endless the situation is dangerous.In the end its just a dog.If it were mine i'd be devastated but there isn't much you can do about it.Also if your dog chewed the shit out of the criminal you bet your ass you'd be sued.The only time a civilian protection dog can bite is if you personally are in danger.with a dog that will commit to the bite, comes great responsability.beware of dog sign just doesn't cut it either in court.That just means you have a dog . If your sign says anything to the effect of attact dog, vicious dog,protection dog,you will be hung in court no doubt,security dog on property is about the only thing you can deffend, working dog on property can also fly if worded correct.I have delt with and owned protection dogs for many years and grew up with them in our home its just something that is part of me forever.It would more than likely be my best dog getting shot for doing what he's taught to do.Would i feel violated? DUH! Its my property. In todays world its not what happend or whats right.Its what you can sway someone to beleive.Pathetic but true..Is it right or Wrong? Ask the cop that did it, Get all the facts.....